May et al v. Barclays PLC et al
Filing
81
ORDER denying as moot 73 Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended complaint on March 13, 2024. Accordingly, as stated at Dkt. No. 77, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' amended complaint is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 73. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 3/26/2024) (va)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
MARK HOWARTH et al.,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
BARCLAYS PLC et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
3/26/2024
23-cv-2583 (LJL)
ORDER
LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:
Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended complaint on March 13, 2024. Accordingly, as
stated at Dkt. No. 77, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ amended complaint is denied as
moot.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 73.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 26, 2024
New York, New York
__________________________________
LEWIS J. LIMAN
United States District Judge
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
